Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So the cartoon parody of 40k is called Space King, and it is hilariously on point.

In the first 2 minutes, the Space Marines invade the planet, steal all the young boys, and gather all the girls into sacks, which are thrown into lava pits violently. All the boys are subjected to "Holy Globule" insertion, and then "psycho armor". It's the perfect parody of all the worst parts of 40k.

 PenitentJake wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:
An analagous question to the 40k "purge the daemon with extreme prejudice" scenario is "How dangerous does a virus need to be for you to support forced vaccinations?" Which is not a simple discussion.

Well, first we need need to acknowledge the use of the word "forced" in the context of vaccinations.

In a democratic state, an elected official acting on the advice of a qualified medical officer, may propose legislation that encourages vaccination, and votes will be cast through various chambers of checks and balances before becoming law. Each level of government- municipal, provincial/ state and federal will go through this process for legislation within their jurisdiction.

Some of the laws might include requiring vaccinations to enter or leave the country, or requiring vaccinations for certain jobs, or entry into certain protected spaces. Consequences for non-compliance may include fines, but usually just enforce limits on access- IE. law says you need a vaccine to work in an old age home, and the penalty for non-compliance is simply that you can't work in that old age home.

Now withing the context of a functioning democracy, people who don't like these laws will CALL them Fascist, and within the context of a democratically elected government, they will general be allowed to do so... But the majority of the population will see it for the hyperbole for what it is.

Because in a real Fascist state?

The deicion to vaccinate would likely be made by one dude without any votes or due process to challenge it, and no recourse to adjudication for constitutionality after the fact. This individual may have been duly elected, but is just as likely to have come to power by assassinating or otherwise eliminating all viable political rivals, engaging in voter suppression, misinformation or some combination of these elements.

The consequences for non-compliance could range from draconian imprisonment, disenfranchisement, torture or death.

The consequences for speaking out against the policy would be the same.

And it is fething ridiculous that in some of the most educated nations in the world, partisan a-holes refuse to acknowledge the difference between case A and case B.

But to take it back to Warhammer, your question actually provides for a cool campaign set in the era Indomitus. What if a cult of Nurgle is poisoning an Imperial world and seeking to summon both daemons and Death Guard to support the descent into disease. A planetary Governor has instituted mandatory vaccination, and the Arbites are rounding up and executing non compliant citizens- some of whom will be Nurgle Cultists, while others will belong to militarized religious orders.

You could create a vaccinated keyword that offers some protection vs. Nurgle's diseases, and some citizens disillusioned with the Imperial pogrom might join the Nurgle forces or succumb to corruption by another chaos power. Some within the Imperial forces may support them- ie. target priority against visibly mutated followers of Nurgle rather than the more human-looking infected but not yet mutated non-compliant citizens duped into supporting the very forces that are killing their fellow citizens by their "discontent" with Imperial governance.

They could all drive Cargo-8 transports to the hive city of Ottawaviticus to protest Imperial Governor Trudeaudonnai.

And that would bring satire back to 40k without GW needing to make a single change to lore or mechanics to facilitate it.

Nice.

I think my only note is that my question I think can illustrate how people can start to justify turning towards authoritarianism, which can allow the erosion of those checks and balances you lay out so well.

I also wonder about the necessity of a single leader for fascism, or if a beuraucratic system can evolve into a fascist state without one. My guess is that it can.

Leopold Helveine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Leopold Helveine wrote:

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
that's all we need, and then we can move on and pretend this game didn't spend 40 years scared of women cooties

Plenty of cooties among the sisters, again.

Not the same thing. Sisters were basically extinct as a playable faction for decades.

Also, traitor slaaneshians (noisemarines) may have female spacemarines imho. go for it.

Thank you for showing just how those sorts of "it's just the lore" comments can then reflect on the real world.

Having women Astartes is compared with the faction of depraved, hedonistic, daemon-worshippers. You conflated women Astartes as being "evil", "corrupted" and "perverse". You don't see why that's *maybe* just a bit of a bad reflection on presentations of women or non-masculine identities in 40k?

And then imagine when you start getting people who might start comparing IRL folks to these factions - deeming them similarly "depraved" or "hedonistic", or "perverse" - and then defending their comments as just being "lore jokes".
In fact, I don't have to imagine. A user was banned on this site for doing just that.

Do you see why this might be a problem?

When people are able to take elements of 40k and weaponise them, then the satire isn't working.
.

Wow, Nothing you fantasised here of what I "meant" with my post is in my post..
I just said female spacemarines could be slaaneshian because of all the marine factions they are the most feminine (see slaaneshian demons in AOS for instance) Eldar also have female troops like banshees (aos whitch elves apply) as so do the drukhari..

It's really just you trying to find something behind my post..

Your response highlights exactly what I'm talking about.

Don't you think it's a bit of a problem that the "feminine" faction* (Slaanesh/Noise Marines) are ALSO the faction characterised by sexual deviancy, impurity, hedonism, and perversity? Like it or not, it is implying that to be non-masculine is to ALSO be all those other things - which is exactly the dogwhistle that Certain People use.

We're talking things like a certain picture that I 've seen crop up:


Eldar and Dark Eldar aren't "human", and therefore aren't used as dogwhistles/icons, unless they're to, again, Otherise people who deviate from the Strong Human Ideal.

Like I said - there's an issue in that the ONLY option for women Astartes "according to the lore" is to be a part of the faction of sexual deviancy, hedonism and perversity, but male Astartes can be *everything else*.




*also, I notice you don't bring Sisters in here. You're right - because they're not Space Marines. I'm just bringing this up in case someone tries to claim "Sisters are just women Astartes", when they're so much cooler than that.

 Insectum7 wrote:

I also wonder about the necessity of a single leader for fascism, or if a beuraucratic system can evolve into a fascist state without one. My guess is that it can.

I think you're right.

A political party can remove checks and balances to its power in the same way an individual can, but it is a bit more challenging, because a group of people will always look for consensus within the party, which may somewhat moderate the actions taken to eliminate the checks and balances.

However, even within a party, there can be unsavory activity that manipulates party members to conform to the will of a small subset within the party. Depending on what that activity is, this may take us back to the idea of the individual exerting fascist tendencies rather than the party as a whole, but from the outside, it may LOOK like a party decision.

I dunno, I don't think Eldar aren't quite alien enough and too human coded. They can very much be used to satirise other aspects of human culture/personality. I'd agree Dark Eldar are cartoon villains rather than satire though

 PenitentJake wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

I also wonder about the necessity of a single leader for fascism, or if a beuraucratic system can evolve into a fascist state without one. My guess is that it can.

I think you're right.

A political party can remove checks and balances to its power in the same way an individual can, but it is a bit more challenging, because a group of people will always look for consensus within the party, which may somewhat moderate the actions taken to eliminate the checks and balances.

However, even within a party, there can be unsavory activity that manipulates party members to conform to the will of a small subset within the party. Depending on what that activity is, this may take us back to the idea of the individual exerting fascist tendencies rather than the party as a whole, but from the outside, it may LOOK like a party decision.

Yah, agree. There definitely seems to be some of that going on in modern day entities.

 Tawnis wrote:
LOL, no one said he was justified.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Or, as a counter?

He saw no need to reveal himself when things were good, as mankind just didn’t need him.

This is a reply to the idea that the Emperor waited until humanity was weakened so he could take over, portraying it as the idea that he was a saviour of mankind. He stopped Terra from being rubbish but then went out and conquered billions of humans who didn't want to be ruled by him, even those who had shown they didn't need the Imperium to survive and indeed thrive.
I'm sure MDG is playing devils advocate here but at no point should we consider the Emperor to be in any way justified for his actions.

His actions? No.

His intent? Possibly.

Remember that The Great Crusade dealt with a number of hostile Xenos species. Species which, with the Warp Storms blown out with the birth of Slaanesh and Fall of the Eldar were suddenly a threat to the disparate worlds of mankind.

Does that justify his ‘join me, or die’ message and approach toward other human worlds? No, absolutely not.

Consider that not one such world or system was able to resist the Crusade Forces. That by definition means they were in turn no threat to the nascent and burgeoning Imperium, and likely never would be - especially not with so many worlds willingly signing up.

In theory, the systems could’ve been declared off limits, with no trade in or out allowed. Most would be able to continue on, as they must’ve been self sufficient to have survived at all. Then, when whatever nasty came across them that even the Legions struggled to defeat? Offer an alliance. Show them the benefit of a united Imperium. Especially when the power of a Planetary Governor can’t be all that different to that of someone ruling a pre-contact survivor planet.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
@Hellebore: I'm sorry I'm out of time to respond atm. I didn't forget you though! I must say I'm having a difficult time finding the difference/distinction you are trying to make though. Trying to keep it in mind as I go about my other obligations.

Because the outcomes for video gaming is easy to measure - you should see an uptick in violence committed by gamers. Which we don't see.

The acceptance of and engagement with intolerant ideologies is a larger societal effect that is harder to measure, and it happens across years rather than the spontaneity of hypothetical violent gamers. As I said in the post I made yesterday, people often don't notice it until it's built too much momentum to be easily stopped.

However we have plenty of precedent for this happening in society and that it starts with small things like not calling people on their ideologies and the live and let live approach (the 'they came for the unionists but I wasn't one' aspect). It's popper's paradox of tolerance and it's been proven multiple times in different countries just in the last 100 years.

This is another example of a false equivalence - because I've described what could be called a slippery slope and many people would dismiss it on those grounds because other slippery slope arguments have been dismissed. But again, the context is key. We've actually got evidence in Germany, Italy, Cambodia, China, Korea, Argentina etc that this slippery slope actually happens.

Which is why it is important to examine the premise underlying the argument, rather than just looking at whether you can apply the same logic to both.

Ok, I have to say that I'm pretty uneasy with this line of thought. Like, you make the claim that the two scenarios are not the same (videogame violence vs. 40k authoritarianism) because one can't be measured, but then label the unmeasurable thing as being problematic. This strikes me as very "thought police-ish", and essentially rife with opportunity to become authoritarian because it enables actions to be taken without evidence.

There's also two immediate logical problems I see. The first is that this leaves open the possibility that violent video games actually can lead to more violence . . . except in some way that's not measurable. The second is that there ought to be some way to measure whether 40k players are somehow more authoritarian. Like, the data should be there if your claims are true. It might be hard to measure, sure, but still theoretically measureable.

And on authoritarianism, I just don't think it's something you cam stamp out by simply not looking at it. Everyone should learn about it from history, for starters. And if the subject is taught properly the lesson should include the contexts for it's rise in popularity during those historical events, to demonstrate it's seductivity. I'm gonna suggest that any rise in the popularity of authoritarianism is not going to be because it shows up in a fictional universe, but instead it's really just going to be a reaction to the environment. People being economically stressed, looking for reasons why they feel angry/afraid/etc, and somebody comes along with a scapegoat and a method of "correction" that just happens to involve an increase in persecution and consolidations of power.

A fictional setting or symbol or expression isn't going to be the underlying cause of authoritarianism, but rather might find itself an unwitting banner for authoritarians who, if said symbol wasn't there, would just find some other banner instead.

Imo it's probably healthier for society to have these fictional examples of authoritarianism floating about so that it can be engaged with and critiqued in a safe environment. It creates a non-high stakes environment where the bad ideas can be expressed, exposed, and countered. Most people will "get it", and some inevitably wont, but I don't think you can thought-police those types out of existence, and trying to do so probably just makes the problem worse.

No I was saying they are measured differently in different timescales. I'm saying there is incontrovertible proof from the last 100 years that societies that don't reject/criticise/protest/abhor etc intolerant ideologies enough or clearly, early in all facets of life see its acceptance and influence increase. You can plot this in modern western countries.

Read up on the tolerance paradox and you'll understand the problems. It's another false equivalence like the evolution debate, climate change debate etc. Giving equal voice to two arguments is not in any way a balanced approach in practice, where one side has no evidence and is purely ideologically driven. Too many people are focused on the definition of terms rather than their real world application - the aforementioned misogyny vs misandry. All these arguments start with the premise 'given an equal playing field then they hold the same value', but that's where it falls down. Because the previous examples both sides are NOT on an even playing field, men and women do not experience identical environments, young earth creationists do not have the same rigor or evidence in their position as evolutionary biologists, live and let live and 'kill anyone not like me' (which grows from - why shouldn't I be allowed to fight for an ideology where some humans get less rights than others) are not equivalent ways to live that affect society the same way.

These arguments are basically that futurama quote - technically correct is the best kind of correct. Technically, misogyny and misandry are definitionally equivalent. PRACTICALLY, they are not, because institutional power structures, social mores and physical power differences conspire to generate very different effects for men and women from technically identical concepts.

The paradox boils down to - if you have two ideologies, live and let live, and 'kill anyone not like us' in the same society, the live and let live will eventually be driven from society, due to how those two ideologies interact in society. One removes opposition, the other does not. So by dint of time, the oppositional removal ideology wins.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Does that justify his ‘join me, or die’ message and approach toward other human worlds? No, absolutely not.

Consider that not one such world or system was able to resist the Crusade Forces. That by definition means they were in turn no threat to the nascent and burgeoning Imperium, and likely never would be - especially not with so many worlds willingly signing up.

In theory, the systems could’ve been declared off limits, with no trade in or out allowed. Most would be able to continue on, as they must’ve been self sufficient to have survived at all. Then, when whatever nasty came across them that even the Legions struggled to defeat? Offer an alliance. Show them the benefit of a united Imperium. Especially when the power of a Planetary Governor can’t be all that different to that of someone ruling a pre-contact survivor planet.

That seems extremly impractical though. You need their resources and man power right now and not in a some moment in the future. Any potential threat that is big will just potential wipe them out or worse corrupt them and turn them against you. If something "nasty" comes along, there is no garentee, you will have the forces on the spot to help and keeping them around "just incase" is again another waste of resources. It is much more effcient to join the population and what ever it has in to your Imperium. On top of that the Emperors state was not a monolith. He may have been the avatar of the Machine God, but the Mechanicus had to be paid in resources, tech etc. Same with other organisations ranging from army generals, knight households and titan legions and ending with the empires own burocracy. All those people had to "paid" to work efficiently, while not hands on supervised every second.
There is also the small problem of old night expiriance and psykers/warp. Left unsupervised a population can wipe itself out just because a psyker felt bad one day and turned himself in to a warp gate for a demonic incrussion.

wasn't there a Sisters short story in the Omnibus about a planet of Emperor loving "ab-humans" who were devotional, always met their quotas, and were a very wonderful happy society, but the Sisters literally burnt the world to cinders because they were Abominations? Was it AI? I forget. In any event, it's a clear indication that the main character, who we're supposed to like and identify with, is a zealot, and part of a radical cult of psychopathic witches that follow a perverted variant understanding of the Emperors teachings? They might as well be the villians of a Guant's novel.

 Hellebore wrote:


The paradox boils down to - if you have two ideologies, live and let live, and 'kill anyone not like us' in the same society, the live and let live will eventually be driven from society, due to how those two ideologies interact in society. One removes opposition, the other does not. So by dint of time, the oppositional removal ideology wins.

The problem with this are two fold. First there are more sides then two, and practicaly all sides want to "kill everyone not like us". Now normaly in any society the role of State and Goverment, is to channel people in to other activities then killing members of the same state. Problems start when the state either tries to side with just one group, and it doesn't matter which one by the way. And the second problem is that it is well and possible to be too nice to everyone. The west right now is paralyzed and reactive (and reactive societies always lose), because within the problem sub set the west has the main one is to, what ever one wants to do, try as hard as possible to seem to not be mean. Societies turn their heads around, ignore problems , devise reach around fixes to problems and it all goes bad, because it is neither rooted in reality, nor is the goal actual problem solving.

Two bonus things to that are the size of modern societies. Back in the day if a city was governed bad, 10k people had it bad. Now it can be milions. And that small difference in speed of technological and socio-biological development of humans as a race. The modern western society runs on laws that were ment to work 100-150 years ago. And part of those ideas can be good, noble etc but often they are impossible to translate in to the modern world.
Pension system(once ment for officers/officials/tech people) with a negative birth rate? Good luck with that. Ultra pricing of models for the high end customer, in the age of 3d printing getting better and better every year? Well one can only hope GW has plans for that. And because there are countless problems or "problems" like that they stack up. And in a world when most are afraid to act or even voice opinions, the end actions are always done by the fringe and the most insane. It has been like that in the and it is the same right now. And to make it most mind blowing it doesn't even matter, who the insane people are left, right, technocrats, religious zelots, both the methods and the end results somehow end up to give the same results for "The People".



Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
wasn't there a Sisters short story in the Omnibus about a planet of Emperor loving "ab-humans" who were devotional, always met their quotas, and were a very wonderful happy society, but the Sisters literally burnt the world to cinders because they were Abominations? Was it AI? I forget. In any event, it's a clear indication that the main character, who we're supposed to like and identify with, is a zealot, and part of a radical cult of psychopathic witches that follow a perverted variant understanding of the Emperors teachings? They might as well be the villians of a Guant's novel.

Abhumans can be sanctioned. Navigators are litteral mutants in a society that is "Kill the Mutant". I remember reading a short story about an IG troop transporter being attacked by orc and crashlanding on a high G planet. The two survivours find themselfs among a society of STC owning, but not knowing how to use it, "centuars". Humans whose ancestors moded their bodies to survive in high G. The good centuars fight with chaos centuars. But for the comissar they are both mutants, so he decides to raport them. He dies before he can fully send the mssg, and the IG trooper that was with him changes report from mutants to stone age tech xeno, knowing that the Empire will not come to purge some low tech xeno. But they would go out of their way to kill a mutant. And by the way this is a biological reaction in build in to every species. People talk a lot about fight or flight, but earth animals also have "kill that which is similar, but different". Even kind of a chill animals like squirls or mormots will go super aggro, if presented with a plush toy of their kind. Humans don't like "too real" looking robots, birds will peck to death a bird of the same kind, if it is of a different colour.

 catbarf wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:Honestly though I would prefer they went the other way. Emphasise the problems with all male, fanatical close minded organisations. Can still be a 'fun' faction, and your poster boy, but the writing should leave you in no doubt why celibate pyscho conditioned all male forces are a bad idea, their fall to corruption in universe, but also sadistic excess, etc. etc. And get back the in universe fiction of having not a second thought about crushing all the babies heads of a city they are ordered to depopulate in order to save ammunition for any citizens who are resisting.

Space Marines as a concept are so close to a pitch-perfect parody of over-the-top toxic masculinity. An all-boys club of socially stunted child soldiers, so wracked with daddy issues that it takes only a nudge for half of them to turn evil. A super manly big muscly beefcake power fantasy, but also literally impotent, conditioned to redirect every emotional response into anger because their junk don't work. Framed that way, Marines being all-male is virtually necessary to their characterization.

But again, that implies satire, something GW seems hesitant to do in general, let alone with the poster boy faction.

Flashgitz has lately been making warhammer spacemarine spoof videos that are -exactly- like that. ;D
(they called it 'space king' lol)

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So the cartoon parody of 40k is called Space King, and it is hilariously on point.

In the first 2 minutes, the Space Marines invade the planet, steal all the young boys, and gather all the girls into sacks, which are thrown into lava pits violently. All the boys are subjected to "Holy Globule" insertion, and then "psycho armor". It's the perfect parody of all the worst parts of 40k.

Holymoly you beat me to it

inb4 a certain someone in this thread jumps on this claiming that this will incite men irl to become like this.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Your response highlights exactly what I'm talking about.

Don't you think it's a bit of a problem that the "feminine" faction* (Slaanesh/Noise Marines) are ALSO the faction characterised by sexual deviancy, impurity, hedonism, and perversity? Like it or not, it is implying that to be non-masculine is to ALSO be all those other things - which is exactly the dogwhistle that Certain People use.

We're talking things like a certain picture that I 've seen crop up:

Spoiler:

Link to image here

Eldar and Dark Eldar aren't "human", and therefore aren't used as dogwhistles/icons, unless they're to, again, Otherise people who deviate from the Strong Human Ideal.

Like I said - there's an issue in that the ONLY option for women Astartes "according to the lore" is to be a part of the faction of sexual deviancy, hedonism and perversity, but male Astartes can be *everything else*.

*also, I notice you don't bring Sisters in here. You're right - because they're not Space Marines. I'm just bringing this up in case someone tries to claim "Sisters are just women Astartes", when they're so much cooler than that.

There's literally nothing someone can say here that you cannot work with (or around) right?

Slaanesh also has men and everything inbetween, and what is wrong with that? Are there now people running around the streets trying to appease slaanesh too? Will we potentially get a slaaneshian government next? ... ..pfff...

 catbarf wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:Honestly though I would prefer they went the other way. Emphasise the problems with all male, fanatical close minded organisations. Can still be a 'fun' faction, and your poster boy, but the writing should leave you in no doubt why celibate pyscho conditioned all male forces are a bad idea, their fall to corruption in universe, but also sadistic excess, etc. etc. And get back the in universe fiction of having not a second thought about crushing all the babies heads of a city they are ordered to depopulate in order to save ammunition for any citizens who are resisting.

Space Marines as a concept are so close to a pitch-perfect parody of over-the-top toxic masculinity. An all-boys club of socially stunted child soldiers, so wracked with daddy issues that it takes only a nudge for half of them to turn evil. A super manly big muscly beefcake power fantasy, but also literally impotent, conditioned to redirect every emotional response into anger because their junk don't work. Framed that way, Marines being all-male is virtually necessary to their characterization.

But again, that implies satire, something GW seems hesitant to do in general, let alone with the poster boy faction.

Well that, and also because they are meant to be based on medieval warrior monk orders and Sardaukar, to go with the overall backwards medieval empire in space theme that the IoM has.
But yeah, being a parody of Rob Liefield-esque "hyper masculine" action heroes was a pretty big part of their theming.

I gotta agree with Smudge on this. Saying FSM have to be slaneshi is pretty much making the case that in order to be female, you have to be deviant, sexual, hedonistic, or warped in some way. The only way to be pure by that logic, is to be a science perverted ab-human freak monster thing. As long as it's "male". Talking about Astartes here.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I gotta agree with Smudge on this. Saying FSM have to be slaneshi is pretty much making the case that in order to be female, you have to be deviant, sexual, hedonistic, or warped in some way. The only way to be pure by that logic, is to be a science perverted ab-human freak monster thing. As long as it's "male". Talking about Astartes here.

LOL

Nowhere in my post did I suggest that FSM have-to-be slaanesh, I stated that they could be slaaneshi because it works with banshees too with the Eldar and of all the traitor legions the Slaaneshi are the most likely to accept women. Where else do female spacemarines apply? Ok.. granted.. Iron warriors then.

This is what is -reading into a post whatever you look for- which seems to be popular in the accusation-camp (against 40k lore in general)
You can find whatever in every text and claim that it has real world consequence, heck.. you can watch any kids cartoon today and find secret illuminati hand signs.. its just fiction for flip sake.

If anything is impure it is a science perverted ab-human freak monster thing that is male as in the marines of the empire.
Why would women have to get in there? Do women need to become science perverted ab-human freak monster things too or can they just stay pious slaaneshi demons.. gawd.

 Leopold Helveine wrote:
and of all the traitor legions the Slaaneshi are the most likely to accept women. Where else do female spacemarines apply?

That's... pretty much the point. Nobody's reading unintended meaning into your posts, they're asking you to think further than 'that's what the lore says, case closed'.

Why are the Emperor's Children/Slaaneshi marines most likely to accept women?

Lets get back to the topic now and please.

 Hellebore wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
@Hellebore: I'm sorry I'm out of time to respond atm. I didn't forget you though! I must say I'm having a difficult time finding the difference/distinction you are trying to make though. Trying to keep it in mind as I go about my other obligations.

Because the outcomes for video gaming is easy to measure - you should see an uptick in violence committed by gamers. Which we don't see.

The acceptance of and engagement with intolerant ideologies is a larger societal effect that is harder to measure, and it happens across years rather than the spontaneity of hypothetical violent gamers. As I said in the post I made yesterday, people often don't notice it until it's built too much momentum to be easily stopped.

However we have plenty of precedent for this happening in society and that it starts with small things like not calling people on their ideologies and the live and let live approach (the 'they came for the unionists but I wasn't one' aspect). It's popper's paradox of tolerance and it's been proven multiple times in different countries just in the last 100 years.

This is another example of a false equivalence - because I've described what could be called a slippery slope and many people would dismiss it on those grounds because other slippery slope arguments have been dismissed. But again, the context is key. We've actually got evidence in Germany, Italy, Cambodia, China, Korea, Argentina etc that this slippery slope actually happens.

Which is why it is important to examine the premise underlying the argument, rather than just looking at whether you can apply the same logic to both.

Ok, I have to say that I'm pretty uneasy with this line of thought. Like, you make the claim that the two scenarios are not the same (videogame violence vs. 40k authoritarianism) because one can't be measured, but then label the unmeasurable thing as being problematic. This strikes me as very "thought police-ish", and essentially rife with opportunity to become authoritarian because it enables actions to be taken without evidence.

There's also two immediate logical problems I see. The first is that this leaves open the possibility that violent video games actually can lead to more violence . . . except in some way that's not measurable. The second is that there ought to be some way to measure whether 40k players are somehow more authoritarian. Like, the data should be there if your claims are true. It might be hard to measure, sure, but still theoretically measureable.

And on authoritarianism, I just don't think it's something you cam stamp out by simply not looking at it. Everyone should learn about it from history, for starters. And if the subject is taught properly the lesson should include the contexts for it's rise in popularity during those historical events, to demonstrate it's seductivity. I'm gonna suggest that any rise in the popularity of authoritarianism is not going to be because it shows up in a fictional universe, but instead it's really just going to be a reaction to the environment. People being economically stressed, looking for reasons why they feel angry/afraid/etc, and somebody comes along with a scapegoat and a method of "correction" that just happens to involve an increase in persecution and consolidations of power.

A fictional setting or symbol or expression isn't going to be the underlying cause of authoritarianism, but rather might find itself an unwitting banner for authoritarians who, if said symbol wasn't there, would just find some other banner instead.

Imo it's probably healthier for society to have these fictional examples of authoritarianism floating about so that it can be engaged with and critiqued in a safe environment. It creates a non-high stakes environment where the bad ideas can be expressed, exposed, and countered. Most people will "get it", and some inevitably wont, but I don't think you can thought-police those types out of existence, and trying to do so probably just makes the problem worse.

No I was saying they are measured differently in different timescales. I'm saying there is incontrovertible proof from the last 100 years that societies that don't reject/criticise/protest/abhor etc intolerant ideologies enough or clearly, early in all facets of life see its acceptance and influence increase. You can plot this in modern western countries.

Read up on the tolerance paradox and you'll understand the problems. It's another false equivalence like the evolution debate, climate change debate etc. Giving equal voice to two arguments is not in any way a balanced approach in practice, where one side has no evidence and is purely ideologically driven. Too many people are focused on the definition of terms rather than their real world application - the aforementioned misogyny vs misandry. All these arguments start with the premise 'given an equal playing field then they hold the same value', but that's where it falls down. Because the previous examples both sides are NOT on an even playing field, men and women do not experience identical environments, young earth creationists do not have the same rigor or evidence in their position as evolutionary biologists, live and let live and 'kill anyone not like me' (which grows from - why shouldn't I be allowed to fight for an ideology where some humans get less rights than others) are not equivalent ways to live that affect society the same way.

These arguments are basically that futurama quote - technically correct is the best kind of correct. Technically, misogyny and misandry are definitionally equivalent. PRACTICALLY, they are not, because institutional power structures, social mores and physical power differences conspire to generate very different effects for men and women from technically identical concepts.

The paradox boils down to - if you have two ideologies, live and let live, and 'kill anyone not like us' in the same society, the live and let live will eventually be driven from society, due to how those two ideologies interact in society. One removes opposition, the other does not. So by dint of time, the oppositional removal ideology wins.

Yeah I understand the tolerance paradox. The problem with its application is that while it's a useful exercise in illustrating the problem, it doesn't offer any solution. Erasing the idea of authoritarianism is impossible for starters, and as I pointed out you're going to find information on it through basic history, and any appropriate teaching on the subject will have to grapple with the "whys" of it, and the conditions in which it can foster. It also seems like the proposed solution is promoting creative censorship, which is a pretty touchy endeavor to say the least.

I also don't see how authoritarianism would automatically be getting "equal footing" in any sort of public debate. And if it somehow gets to that point I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it's not because of a fictional universe that uses it as an excuse for an insanely violent setting for purposes of wargaming, but rather that societal conditions have degraded to the point where significant numbers of people are turning towards its ideas, and they would have arrived there anyways without such fiction.

Edit: Also, aplogies. I'm about to be beyond the reach of the internet for m a week, so I won't be able to respond for a while.